Friday, April 13, 2012

Colorado Court of Appeals People v. Oslund 10CA2049

Decision here.

   Oslund was at a party where one of the other guests (Maez) got really drunk, and broke into the host's car.  The host caught Maez as he was getting out of the car with some of her property, but didn't recognize him.  Maez took off running, dropping some of the stuff as he went.

   Oslund and his brother went looking for the suspect.  When the came back, Oslund was carrying a bloody stick and had blood on his hands.  They told the other party goers that the suspect had been Maez, and they had found him  and recovered the property he had stolen from the car.  Oslund also said that he had punched Maez.  Some of Maez's friends went looking for him.  They found him suffering from blunt force trauma to the head.  He was taken to the hospital.  He died.

   Oslund was eventually arrested, and was later convicted of reckless manslaughter and aggravated robbery, and sentenced to life without parole.  He appealed his conviction, based on insufficient evidence and on the trial court's denial of his affirmative defense.

   Oslund argued that there was insufficient evidence to support his aggravated robbery conviction, because a reasonable jury couldn't have found that he intended to kill, maim, or wound Maez if resisted (never mind that he did exactly that...).  Oslund's argument was that there was no evidence at all that he knew Maez's identity when he started chasing him, that he (Oslund) had injuries to his fists consistent with punching Maez hard enough to kill him, or that he had a stick or other weapon when he began chasing Maez.  The Court of Appeals ruled that none of these things were elements of the crime, and that there was sufficient evidence to support Maez's conviction.

   Oslund also argued that the trial court erred by denying him an affirmative defense of defense of property.  Basically, in order to claim an affirmative defense, a defendant only has to offer some credible evidence (the court uses the word "scintilla") that the affirmative defense applies, and then the prosecution would have to disprove the affirmative defense in addition to proving all the other elements of the crime.  Defense of property is defined in CRS 18-1-706:

A person is justified in using reasonable and
appropriate physical force upon another
person when and to the extent that he 7
reasonably believes it necessary to prevent
what he reasonably believes to be an attempt
by the other person to commit theft, criminal
mischief, or criminal tampering involving
property, but he may use deadly physical force
under these circumstances only in defense of
himself or another as described in section 18-
1-704.

   The Court of Appeals held that Maez had completed the theft when he exercised control over the stolen property and removed it from the car.  Therefore, Oslund and his brother were trying to apprehend Maez, and could no longer prevent any theft.

   Oslund's conviction was affirmed.

No comments:

Post a Comment